Tuesday, 24 July 2012

A MORMON FOREIGN POLICY
WOULD BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND GREAT FOR THE WORLD, BUT IT WON’T HAPPEN….

As the world prepares
to face another US presidential election, thoughts turn to the likely foreign
and national security policies of America’s first ‘Mormon’ White House under
Mitt Romney. Widely derided as either weird or a cult, a foreign policy ‘true’
to Mormon beliefs would likely see radical shifts – a massive rollback of
American military forces from Afghanistan, reduction of the threatening
attitude to Iran, a reversal of blanket support and aid to Israel, and slashed
military spending. America would ‘come home’ and experience a real peace
dividend that so patently failed to materialise after the end of the Cold War.

But there’s a
difference between authentic Mormon beliefs and ex-Bishop Willard Mitt Romney,
the Church of Latter Day Saints’ establishment and, it must be noted, the
majority of American Mormons. So ‘Americanised’ are Romney, the LDS
establishment, and lay Mormons that a Romney White House would differ little in
practice from previous administrations – including JFK’s ‘Roman Catholic’ and
Obama’s ‘African-American’ ones. And that is testimony to the almost
overweening assimilating powers of the American Way of Life – the subordination,
or hollowing out, of any beliefs that challenge free enterprise, limited
government, American exceptionalism, and US proactive global leadership.

A variety of dissenting
voices – socialist, conservative, and others - are heard in the Mormon
community which, at 14 million strong worldwide, is the fourth largest
denomination in the United States. ‘Mormons for Ron Paul’ – a libertarian
Republican contender for the GOP’s nomination who may have as much as 20% of
all delegates at the upcoming national convention in Tampa, Florida - argue
that Romney, the LDS hierarchy and fellow Christians have forgotten the
fundamentals of Christian beliefs in peace, diplomacy and negotiation. But when
Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, rejected US military intervention as a ‘silver
bullet’ for global problems, he was met with derision from fellow Republicans
and Christians. LDS ‘Liberty’ members, who also backed Ron Paul, suggested that
US foreign policy be run according to the Bible’s ‘Golden Rule’ – the principle
that “forbids interference by one with the rights of another. It is equally
binding upon nations, associations, and individuals…” “Love your enemies,” they
suggest, while deriding as “death and destruction” large swathes of American
foreign and national security policy.

Meanwhile, the ‘Latter
Day Conservatives’ website further underlines Mormons’ authentic belief in
Christian values. They argue that Christians should ever lift “a standard of
peace” rather than fight wars or exact “vengeance” even for the terror attacks
on 9-11, rejecting “pre-emptive war” on Iraq, or a future war on Iran, as
Romney threatens, if elected. Projecting back into American history to trace
the rise of an interventionist mindset, LDS Conservatives criticise President
Woodrow Wilson’s alleged support for a“world safe for democracy” during World War I, suggesting that “There is
one and only one legitimate goal of US foreign policy…: the preservation of our
national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President
shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader…. [nor] to
influence the life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster
their economies….”

Yet, so reputedly integrated
into the American Way are Mormons that the FBI and CIA regard mere LDS membership
as de facto patriotic loyalty tests. And there is a logical reason: Mormons
believe the American Constitution to be a sacred document received direct from
God – not the work of mere mortals. They also believe fundamentally in
America’s exceptional character and mission. And this aligns perfectly with the
missionary character of Mormonism itself. Indeed, the teetotal Mitt Romney
spent years in France – and in French bars – trying to win converts to the
cause.

There are Mormons,
however, who lament the uncritical acceptance among their community of the word
from the White House in regard to the dangers to the republic from “monsters
abroad”. To some, the broad mass of Mormons appear to be only faintly familiar
with the Book of Mormon, the LDS’ earliest and most holy scripture, making
them prey to “scheming leaders”. They reject the claims of the LDS
establishment, which backed the preventive war on Iraq in 2003, on the basis
that it was a war, in the words of LDS President, Gordon B. Hinckley, “not…
for… power but… for [Americans’] homes and their liberties, their wives and
their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their
church.”

From the Left, The
Mormon Worker website not only rejects Romney’s foreign policies on Israel
and the Palestinians, among others, but also lambasts President Obama’s
strategy - before and during the Arab spring – of supplying American arms to
some of the most repressive and backward regimes in the region to put down
popular revolts.

But these are relatively
isolated voices in the Mormon community, while Romney swims with the tide. Romney
has drawn his foreign policy advisors from among re-organised and renewed
neoconservatives who backed the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and
other militaristic organisations – like Elliott Cohen, William Kristol, Robert
Kagan, John Bolton- that called for an American war on Iraq as early as 1997.
Not for Romney, a foreign affairs novice, the counsel of old time Republican
internationalists like Brent Scowcroft or Richard Armitage, or Reagan-Bush I
era former secretaries of state, James Baker III or George P. Shultz – who were
aggressive enough in the pursuit of American power. Consequently, Romney has
veered towards bellicose declarations – no negotiations with the Taliban
(instead the US should “go anywhere they are and… kill them”), greater military
and economic pressure on Iran, more arms to Taiwan, and declared
Russia America’s main geopolitical enemy.

Romney has dozens of
foreign and national security policy advisors but his inner circle are reputed
to be similar to Bush’s ‘vulcans’ – neoconservative hardliners who appear to
think that the Iraq War was a great American victory and that the military
budget should be increased by $200 billion by 2016 ( the Obama administration
had increased military spending by $200 billion over that of President Bush in
2008; Romney’s plans project spending to increase 38% higher than Obama’s
current plans), including an increase of 100,000 soldiers in the military, from
five to nine navy ships built annually, stationing two aircraft carriers off
Iran’s coast (Obama has ramped up such pressure on Iran too), and installing a
missile defence system in Europe. At the same time, Romney advocates cutting
taxes by 20%; in 2010, Obama, it may be recalled, retained President Bush’s
planned tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. The Obama administration’s
militarism has pushed Romney to even greater, politically less credible,
extremes.

Sunday, 8 July 2012

A glance at the White House document below on the post-2014 US commitment to Afghanistan is revealing: it is some way down the page that 'democracy' makes an appearance, long after 'security' and 'sovereignty' and 'stability'. It is unsurprising in some ways as security is a condition of a functioning democracy. However, democracy is also a source of security and stability, and by downgrading the significance of democracy, even the lip service level that is the usual fate for 'democracy promotion' in third world countries, the US reveals the utter failure of their mission in Afghanistan: defeating the Taliban and its allies, promoting democratic rights, and creating security. The Karzai regime is corrupt and mired in warlordism; its 'security' forces are among the most significant sources of violence against the Afghan people, and the US has just agreed to sell arms to Afghanistan after 2014, as well as to retain troops there for training and other purposes.

Key Facts on U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement

01 May 2012

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
May 1, 2012Fact Sheet: The U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement
In May 2010, in Washington, DC, President Obama and President Karzai
committed our two countries to negotiate and conclude a strategic
partnership that would provide a framework for our future relationship.
On May 1, 2012, President Obama and President Karzai signed the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) is a legally binding
executive agreement, undertaken between two sovereign nations. The
President’s goal in negotiating such an agreement has been to define
with the Afghan Government what's on the other side of Transition and
the completed drawdown of U.S. forces. The agreement the President
signed today will detail how the partnership between the United States
and Afghanistan will be normalized as we look beyond a responsible end
to the war. Through this Agreement, we seek to cement an enduring
partnership with Afghanistan that strengthens Afghan sovereignty,
stability and prosperity, and that contributes to our shared goal of
defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates.
The Agreement signed today affirms that cooperation between Afghanistan
and the United States is based on mutual respect and shared interests.
In this Agreement, we commit ourselves to the sovereignty,
independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan.
The Agreement is not only a signal of the United States’ long-term
commitment to Afghanistan, but it enshrines our commitments to one
another and a common vision for our relationship and Afghanistan’s
future. U.S. commitments to support Afghanistan’s social and economic
development, security, institutions and regional cooperation are matched
by Afghan commitments to strengthen accountability, transparency,
oversight, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and
women.
In addition to recognizing the progress that has been made together
over the past 10 years, the Strategic Partnership Agreement includes
mutual commitments in the areas of:
• Protecting and Promoting Shared Democratic Values
• Advancing Long-Term Security
• Reinforcing Regional Security and Cooperation
• Social and Economic Development
• Strengthening Afghan Institutions and Governance
When it comes to an enduring U.S. presence, President Obama has been
clear: we do not seek permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
Instead, the Strategic Partnership Agreement commits Afghanistan to
provide U.S. personnel access to and use of Afghan facilities through
2014 and beyond. The Agreement provides for the possibility of U.S.
forces in Afghanistan after 2014, for the purposes of training Afghan
Forces and targeting the remnants of al-Qaeda, and commits the United
States and Afghanistan to initiate negotiations on a Bilateral Security
Agreement to supersede our current Status of Forces Agreement. The
United States will also designate Afghanistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally” to
provide a long-term framework for security and defense cooperation.
To be clear, the Strategic Partnership Agreement itself does not commit
the United States to any specific troop levels or levels of funding in
the future, as those are decisions will be made in consultation with the
U.S. Congress. It does, however, commit the United States to seek
funding from Congress on an annual basis to support the training,
equipping, advising and sustaining of Afghan National Security Forces,
as well as for social and economic assistance.
Finally, the Strategic Partnership establishes implementing
arrangements and mechanisms to ensure that we are effectively carrying
out the commitments we’ve made to one another. To ensure the Strategic
Partnership is effectively implemented, the Afghanistan-United States
Bilateral Commission will be established, chaired by Foreign Ministers
or their designees.